Tag Archives: US Supreme Court

political news, religious news

Pope steps into U.S. political struggle

francis

Pope Francis got a lot of love from Americans during his whirlwind trip to the United States.

Much of it is deserved. I join many others in applauding the Holy Father’s humanity and humility.

Then he said something today that I find, well, not quite so praiseworthy. He said upon returning to the Vatican that U.S. elected officials have the right to object to performing their duties on matters of conscience.

At issue: gay marriage.

Your Holiness, I believe you are mistaken.

Francis gets it wrong

There, I said it. I hope I’m not struck down for criticizing the pope.

“Conscientious objection must enter into every judicial structure, because it is a right,” he told reporters while flying to Rome.

Fans and allies of embattled Rowan (Ky.) County Clerk Kim Davis are no doubt cheering the pontiff. She has refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples on the basis of her religious faith, which she said opposes gay marriage.

The pope agrees with her, which is his right.

Back to his point about “conscientious objection.” Americans who get elected to public office take a secular oath, even though many of the oaths instruct them to say “so help me God.” Still, the standard oath doesn’t give officeholders the option to object to doing certain duties because their conscience won’t allow it.

It’s a secular oath that binds the officeholder to upholding the laws of the land.

The Supreme Court upheld a challenge to a law — in Kentucky — that banned gay marriage. A gay couple sued and the high court ruled earlier this year that the Constitution’s 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law for gay couples who want to marry.

So, the county clerk must follow the law.

She is free to quit her public job. She also is free to campaign as a private citizen to make gay marriage illegal. Contrary to what the Holy Father believes, though, Davis or any other public official isn’t free to invoke his or her personal belief in the performance of their public duty — when it discriminates against Americans.

Surely His Holiness knows this.

Hey, I still love the guy.

 

 

national news, political news

GOP men vs. GOP women on abortion

The men who run the Republican Party caucus on Capitol Hill are facing a determined foe.

They happen to be the women who comprise the rank and file of GOP legislators.

The battleground? It’s abortion. Men of the GOP? You’re in for a fight.

You go, ladies.

Abortion dissenters face backlash

Female Republican House members are rising up against anti-abortion legislation that would stop abortions at the 20-week mark of a pregnancy. The legislation contains language about rape and suggests that even women who become pregnant as a result of a savage sexual assault must carry the pregnancy to full term. The provision in the bill required that women who are raped had to report the incident to police to be exempted from the 20-week rule. Some Republican moderate women said as many as 70 percent of rapes go unreported by women.

This is what happens when men — who know not a single thing about some of these intensely personal issues — make laws affecting women.

Congress intended to pass this legislation out on the 42nd anniversary of the historic Roe vs. Wade decision in the Supreme Court that stated the Constitution protects a woman’s right to end a pregnancy.

Conservatives are angry over the GOP moderates’ torpedoing of the legislation. Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council, said the women will be “held accountable.”

Baloney.

They’ve acted responsibly and their voices need to be heard on this issue that only they understand.

 

legal news, political news, State news

No surprise: High Court upholds Texas voter ID law

Early voting in Texas begins Monday and everyone who votes in this mid-term election will be required to produce identification that proves they are who they say they are.

This comes courtesy of the U.S. Supreme Court, which today ruled that the Texas voter ID law is valid and that, by golly, it does not amount to an unconstitutional “poll tax.”

Interesting.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/221166-supreme-court-rules-texas-can-enforce-voter-id-law

A federal judge in Texas had struck down the law, saying it discriminated against low-income Americans — notably African-Americans and Hispanics — who might be unable to afford such identification. The judge, a Barack Obama appointee, is a Latina jurist.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals then reversed the judge’s ruling. The case then went to the highest court in the land, which today ruled 6-3 to reinstate the Texas voter ID law.

The three dissenters: Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg (a Bill Clinton appointee), and Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan (Barack Obama appointees).

Ginsburg said this in her dissent: “The greatest threat to public confidence in elections in this case is the prospect of enforcing a purposefully discriminatory law, one that likely imposes an unconstitutional poll tax and risks denying the right to vote to hundreds of thousands of eligible voters.”

Those who support these laws contend that they prevent “voter fraud” and keep illegal immigrants from voting. That, too, is interesting, given that there is so little evidence of such fraud existing in Texas or anywhere else.

The reinstatement of this law is now more than likely going to stand for the foreseeable future.

We’ll see how many American citizens will be turned away from polling places across Texas. Let’s also take a look at their ethnicity, shall we?

International news, legal news

Here's your judicial activism, Sen. Cruz

Ted Cruz brought it up, so I’ll continue running with it.

The freshman U.S. senator from Texas accused the U.S. Supreme Court of engaging in “judicial activism” when it refused to review state cases relating to same-sex marriage. Activism? Hardly. Restraint? That’s more like it.

The Republican’s silly assertion brought to mind a conversation I had in 2009 with a true-blue judicial activist, who was damn proud of his role in correcting mistakes the legislative body in his country makes on occasion.

Meet Salim Joubran, a member of the Israeli supreme court. I made his acquaintance in June 2009 while traveling through Israel with four other West Texans as part of a Rotary International Group Study Exchange. Our group met him in Jerusalem.

Judge Joubran was unapologetic about his activist nature.

His take on the court’s role in Israel is that judges have to correct mistakes that the Knesset — the Israeli parliament — makes in enacting certain laws. “We are respectful of the Knesset,” he said, “but the court’s activism is necessary.”

Joubran said that Israel doesn’t have a constitution. National law, therefore, makes it “virtually imperative that judges correct mistakes in laws approved by the Knesset,” I wrote after visiting with Joubran.

We’re proud in this country of our judicial system. I know I am. It works well most of the time. I’m not going to advocate for the form of judicial activism that Salim Joubran practices while interpreting Israeli law.

But I’m going to draw a conclusion about how some American politicians define the term “judicial activism.” It’s usually used as a pejorative by conservative pols who take issue with what they see as “liberal” court rulings.

Fine. However, conservative judges can be activists, too. I’ve already cited the Citizens United ruling in 2010 as an example of conservative judicial activism.

I cannot recall five years after meeting with Judge Joubran whether he’d be considered a liberal or conservative judge. He’s an activist — and proud of it.

I found it refreshing and, frankly, courageous.

If only more judges in this country stood up for their own activism and were willing to defend it in front of anyone who challenged them.

legal news, national news

Where's the threat to 'traditional marriage'?

So …

The Supreme Court has refused to review challenges to same-sex marriage laws in several states. “Marriage equality” proponents have proclaimed that as a victory, that it shows the highest court in the nation is comfortable with states allowing same-sex unions.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/supreme-court-declines-to-review-same-sex-marriage-cases/ar-BB7QehZ

I’ve commented already today on the shifting tide in favor of same-sex marriage.

No doubt we’re going to hear commentary from those who perceive some “threat” to traditional marriage by the expansion of the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples.

Allow me this brief look at the so-called threat.

There isn’t any.

I’ve stated already that my wife and I — and I feel comfortable speaking for her on this matter — are quite comfortable with our own union. We sealed it 43 years ago and we’re going quite strong. At no point ever in all those years have we felt threatened by those who choose to bond with others of the same sex. The gay couples we have known have their own lives and we have ours. End of story.

No, the threat to traditional marriage covers a lot more ground than this single issue. It rests with society at large, with laws that make it arguably too easy for couples to end marriages.

My own values are deeply held and are personal in the extreme. They won’t be shaken loose by those of different orientations.

I could bet real American money that I am not alone in believing that same-sex unions pose zero threat by themselves to “traditional marriage.”

Uncategorized

Conflict of interest on high court?

Ginni Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, is a longtime political activist.

The latest news of her political activism makes me wonder: Does this married couple ever talk about their day when they’re home at night? Ever?

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/07/29/groundswell-ginni-thomas-and-continued-conflict/195117

Conflicts of interest are nothing new in Washington, or in Austin, or even in Amarillo for that matter. It is troubling in the extreme, though, when a sitting justice is married to someone with such a heavy-hitting role in political causes that might become the subject of, say, appeals before that very court.

Mrs. Thomas’s role in these endeavors is troubling to be sure.

The government watchdog group Common Cause questioned whether Justice Thomas should have taken part in the landmark Citizens United case that enabled corporations to make unlimited campaign donations because, according to Mother Jones magazine, the justice well could have taken part in Citizens United strategy sessions before it made its case before the court.

Ginni Thomas has been involved with groups opposing the Affordable Care Act. Her husband voted with the minority that sought to repeal a key portion of the law.

It’s fine for the spouse of a high-ranking public official to be involved politically. It’s quite a different matter, though, when a perception emerges that the spouse’s involvement might affect the public official’s performance of his or her duty.

Justice Elena Kagan once was solicitor general of the United States, meaning she argued the government’s position before the court. One of the cases she argued had to do with Arizona’s strict immigration law. How did she vote when the case came before the court? She didn’t. Justice Kagan recused herself.

Justice Thomas should do the same whenever cases connected to political causes involving his wife come before the court.